I do most of my photo editing in Lightroom and am just now realizing the importance of softproofing. After getting my pic just the way I want it in Lightroom, I bring it into Photoshop and apply my lab's softproof profile. Once I do the softproofing, the image looks terrible (as you all know from experience)...colors and tones look very muddy, not as saturated, etc. Don't cringe when I say this but I don't know how to alter colors and tones very well in PS, I'm a Lightroom junkie. Despite that, I'm playing around in PS with softproofing turned on but can't seem to get the colors and tones back to the way I had them...they still look muddy (brownish-toned) no matter how I try to change things. Can some of you please give me some guidance? Do any of you have any tips on getting your colors and tones close to where they were before applying softproofing?

Anyone know of any tutorials online for "post-softproofing" editing in PS? That would be so helpful.

There is a wonderful tutorial called "From Camera To Print" on the home page of the Luminous Landscape. One module of it is completely dedicated to softproofing.

I agree.

Just as a brief note to the OP however - be aware that once you Soft Proof the image in PS (provided you have simulate paper colour selected etc.; which you should) that you are simulating the dynamic range of what the print will look like on paper. To some extent no amount of adjustment can correct for this. What you are seeing is the difference between the dynamic range of your back lit monitor and the front lit paper you are printing on. Yes, a slight curve tweak can restore some contrast (and is almost always necessary especially with matt papers) but it can never fully compensate for the difference in dynamic range. It just takes practice to get know what adjustment and how much to apply to get the match as close as possible.

Once I do the softproofing, the image looks terrible (as you all know from experience)...colors and tones look very muddy, not as saturated, etc.

Well, that is exactly why you need softproofing. To warn you for overly bright and saturated images.If everything is setup correctly PS will show you the limits of what is possible in your prints. There is no way to go over these limits. If it was possible to go over these limits by means of colourcorrection softproofing would be meaningless.

Try the following; make a image with tree coloured squares 255 red, 255 green and 255 blue. Turn on softproofing. The coloured squares become pale and dull. Try to adjust them with Hue/Saturation. You will see that it is impossible to give them more saturation and clarity. PS will not allowed it!

Offcourse you can improve your image after softproofing to get more pleasing results but you can never exceed the limits of your printer and paper.

The answer is, I think, to avoid the problem altogether by saving the soft-proofed image under a different name. I use a name that identifies the paper/printer profile that was used for soft-proofing, and this image will be used only for printing to that printer/paper. Your original will still be available in LR without the soft-proofing changes.

Logged

Peter"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."View my web pageView my Facebook page

Thanks guys, that looks like a very helpful resource. Do you know if that tutorial talks about how to undo (as much as possible) those muddy colors and tones? Hope so.

Does the difference in dynamic range cause the colors and tones to look "muddy" or does that happen from something else with softproofing?

"Dynamic Range" essentially measures the blackness of your blacks relative to white. Muddiness is a an appearance occurring from "less-than-black" blacks which could be grayish or grayish-brownish, etc., depending on the colours of the image. When you change the viewing medium from your display to a printed image three essential things are happening: (i) the blacks get dulled-down because paper black is not as black as monitor black, (ii) the luminosity of the image gets dulled down because paper reflects light whereas a monitor transmits light, and (iii) white is seldom perfectly white, and the off-white of the monitor does not necessarily match the off-white of the paper you are using. For example, relative to my monitor's version of white, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk has a very slight warm cast, whereas Epson Premium Luster has a blueish cast. The purpose of softproofing in Photoshop is for the program to show you on your monitor what the print will look like. To do this, when you activate the softproof, make sure you have the same printer profile loaded in the soft-proof that you will be using for colour-managing the print. Also make sure to check the box for Simulate Paper White, as this makes the soft-proof show the outcome more accurately. And it may even upset your stomach.

Now, with the softproof active, you can to a considerable extent adjust the image so that the impact of the change from monitor to print appears to the eye to be mitigated, even though in objective terms you cannot overcome the basic limitations of the paper and ink combination. The usual ways I implement it are the following: (1) Make sure your display is calibrated and profiled to a white point which corresponds well with the viewing conditions of the prints. Some people like D50, others D65. You find this out by experimenting. (2) Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience. (3) A Curves Adjustment Layer which is dedicated to the softproof condition: with the softproof active, you would find yourself steepening the curve somewhat to increase contrast and increasing its mid-tone brightness; this will for sure compress some of the tonal detail in the very dark areas of the image, but it will provide more "snap" which you are trying to recover; so there is a bit of a trade-off here between "snap" and dark area tonal gradation; (4) add a "Vibrance" Adjustment Layer, and moderately increase the vibrancy of the image, which will help to brighten up some colours which may appear relatively dulled by the softproof. (4) Back in the Curves Adjustment Layer, if you find that the softproof results in the image having a slight colour cast you don't like, you can counteract it with very moderate mid-point shifts of the individual R, G, or B, curves; for example, if you thought the image a bit too warm under softproof, you could select the Blue Channel and very moderately increase the blue component. But care is needed here, because it affects the whole image. I seldom find myself doing this.

It will really be great when LR has a soft-proofing function, because that will be one more reason for avoiding a trip to Photoshop by being able to print the raw image quite accurately directly from the raw converter. Till then, what's above should help.

Hey everyone I was also thinking about this stuff that the OP asked becasue I am fairly new to printing. It is also important to note that the OP's printer itself, the inks he is using, and his paper choice all have limitations and that he may be finally seeing those limitations as he has now come to the final stage of printing.

On another point, I just asked another forum about using 'simulate paper color'. I was told that it was better not to use it. Here is the answer I got. I agreed with it but you guys are making me re-think things:

Here was my question:I can only say that there is a difference between the softproof and non softproof image on my calibrated monitor. I am trying to make the two match as closely as possible and it looks a little bit more blue to my eyes than anything else such as yellow or red etc.

Here is the answer:If you tick Simulate Paper Color the soft proof will look blue - the paper base is slightly blue and this is what is being simulated. To be more precise, the paper is bluer than your monitor white point, so the paper simulation looks blue when compared to your monitor white point. If you view the simulation in PS in Full Screen mode (press f f) on a black background you will probably find that the blue tint has gone. This is only because your eye adapts to the white point of the simulated paper.

You say that you get a good print/screen match with colour. Do you use the same soft proof regime for colour? Try putting a wide white border around one of you colour images and then doing the soft proof with SPC ticked. You'll probably see a blue tint there as well.

The bottom line really is, if you don't want the simulation to look blue against your grey PS desktop, don't tick the box.

On another point, I just asked another forum about using 'simulate paper color'. I was told that it was better not to use it.

Clearly the Adobe engineers provided a bad option... not. The Simulate Paper is very useful! Useful when used correctly, with good ICC profiles for display and output device.

Quote

If you tick Simulate Paper Color the soft proof will look blue - the paper base is slightly blue and this is what is being simulated. To be more precise, the paper is bluer than your monitor white point, so the paper simulation looks blue when compared to your monitor white point.

You suppose the calibrated white point of the display, based on the paper might be an issue here? Its a lot like the dreaded “my prints are too dark”, and those who suggest you alter the RGB values in the document when the issue isn’t the RGB values, its the way the display was (incorrectly based on the print viewing), calibrated. We have to calibrate a white point target. Using the paper(s) to produce this target values is kind of useful if you wish to produce a visual match.

Quote

If you view the simulation in PS in Full Screen mode (press f f) on a black background you will probably find that the blue tint has gone. This is only because your eye adapts to the white point of the simulated paper.

What you find in full screen mode is your eyes don’t adapt to the white of the UI and palettes which unfortunately do not under go the white simulation. So that’s good advise but it does make editing a tad more difficult. Full screen mode, with no UI elements, is useful when you wish to view only the soft proof and the print next to it to see if indeed the two visually match. Its useful to set the zoom ratio of the image on-screen to match the size of the print when possible.

Whoever gave you that advice = well I don't care who - it's misleading. Firstly, unless you check Simulate Paper White you will not see the influence of the paper on the print. Try it yourself. Make one print adjusted the way you like it without Simulate Paper White, make another print adjusted the way you like it with Simulate Paper White active, then compare them with the monitor images, and you will see which condition is best suited to your circumstances. Secondly, Simulate Paper White will only make the softproof look bluish if the paper itself is bluish - such as Epson's Premium Luster. However, the softproof will look slightly yellowish if the paper has a warmer tint, such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk - in both cases assuming the profile is feeding back correct information. That's the whole point of softproofing - it is to simulate what you will get from the printer using the specific paper and profile with which you will be printing.

"The resulting soft proof display can be quite disconcerting at first. By this I mean that the overall tone of the image may tend to look compressed or slightly color shifted (e.g. white takes on a blue cast). This can often occurs when using printer profiles that were created from scanner based profiling applications. In such circumstances it's probably best to leave the Simulate Paper Color and Black Ink options unchecked"

"Dynamic Range" essentially measures the blackness of your blacks relative to white. Muddiness is a an appearance occurring from...Now, with the softproof active, you can to a considerable extent adjust the image so that the impact of the change from monitor to print appears to the eye to be mitigated, even though in objective terms you cannot overcome the basic limitations of the paper and ink combination. The usual ways I implement it are the following: (1) Make sure your display is calibrated and profiled to a white point which corresponds well with the viewing conditions of the prints. Some people like D50, others D65. You find this out by experimenting. (2) Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience. (3) A Curves Adjustment Layer which is dedicated to the softproof condition: with the softproof active, you would find yourself steepening the curve somewhat to increase contrast and increasing its mid-tone brightness; this will for sure compress some of the tonal detail in the very dark areas of the image, but it will provide more "snap" which you are trying to recover; so there is a bit of a trade-off here between "snap" and dark area tonal gradation; (4) add a "Vibrance" Adjustment Layer, and moderately increase the vibrancy of the image, which will help to brighten up some colours which may appear relatively dulled by the softproof. (4) Back in the Curves Adjustment Layer, if you find that the softproof results in the image having a slight colour cast you don't like, you can counteract it with very moderate mid-point shifts of the individual R, G, or B, curves; for example, if you thought the image a bit too warm under softproof, you could select the Blue Channel and very moderately increase the blue component. But care is needed here, because it affects the whole image. I seldom find myself doing this.

Mark, thank you so much for all your helpful advice. I haven't had a chance to fool around with softproofing the past few days but I will give your suggestions a whirl and see what happens. I'll post here again if I have further questions/concerns.

Ok, since I'm new to printing, I need some advice here. I thought using a lab like WHCC was a good move. However, after reading the following two things in replies, I'm wondering if this isn't the way to go or if I should rethink things...

From Mark -

Quote

Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience.

From Artistoc -

Quote

It is also important to note that the OP's printer itself, the inks he is using, and his paper choice all have limitations and that he may be finally seeing those limitations as he has now come to the final stage of printing.

Does this mean that if I possibly went with a different lab who might use different paper, different ink, I wouldn't see such a bad looking change when I softproof? Is there a more "high-quality" lab out there I could use? I am SO new to all of this, I just assumed that WHCC was a good choice.

Also, would printing at home be better, since Mark said to use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print? I was just trying to avoid more expense of a printer, having to deal with ink and paper, etc. Does printing yourself REALLY help you guys get more control over the accuracy of your prints versus using a lab? Please share your advice and experiences on this whole issue. If it does help you guys, like Mark said he has more control over the paper, I will give it a try if I have to. I think the two quotes I posted above are just throwing me for a loop since I thought once you have things properly calibrated and you softproof, you should be able to get great looking prints with labs like WHCC or MPix.

Does printing yourself REALLY help you guys get more control over the accuracy of your prints versus using a lab?

IF you are dealing with a lab that demands you send them sRGB (even after sending you a profile for soft proofing), the entire discussion here is moot. You MUST be able to convert the data using the profile, control rendering intent, CMM, etc and have them output that data. If they provide a profile but don’t let you use it, forget em, they are blowing color management smoke up your butt <g>.

IF you are dealing with a lab that demands you send them sRGB (even after sending you a profile for soft proofing), the entire discussion here is moot. You MUST be able to convert the data using the profile, control rendering intent, CMM, etc and have them output that data. If they provide a profile but don’t let you use it, forget em, they are blowing color management smoke up your butt <g>.

I'm confused. So are you saying you need to be able to send files in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB? I don't get it, you can't softproof a file in sRGB?? I don't understand what you're saying.

I've been sending my images to WHCC as jpegs. Can't jpegs only be in sRGB color space? WHCC says they can take Adobe RGB as well. huh? How would I do that?

What do you mean by "if they provide you with a profile but don't let you use it?" I don't really understand what you're saying. Sorry, I'm a newb to all of this. Thanks.

WHCC takes whatever profile you assign to the image. I print with them occasionally and what I do is edit my image in Photoshop (16-bit, Prophoto or Adobe RGB color space) and then when I'm ready to print I export jpg without changing the colorspace. I used to do this out of Photoshop but I've been getting in the habit of saving the TIFF and then exporting out of Lightroom (which also allows you to specify the resulting color space).

You might be confusing color space with bit depth, JPGs can only be 8-bit but aren't limited to the sRGB color space.

I'm not experienced with soft proofing, so this thread was interesting to me, but thought I'd chime in about a part of the discussion I do know something about.

I'm confused. So are you saying you need to be able to send files in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB?

No, you need to send the files in the output color space described by the profile used to soft proof.

Quote

Can't jpegs only be in sRGB color space?

Because the device doesn’t output sRGB. It outputs some color space based on the profile provided for soft proofing. Once you soft proof, you’ve decided on a rendering intent. You’ve selected Black Point Compensation (and a CMM that supports it). If you soft proof this way but don’t convert, we have no idea if the lab uses that profile or those settings. Likely not. Otherwise why not allow you to use said profile?

Sending you an output profile solely for soft proofing, then demanding you not fully use it is a half baked idea of color management.